I agree it’s difficult to read. After a while you adjust to the phrasing but it’s similar to watching "Hamlet" or a play where they are speaking in that old English manner. Uhhh
Hey it’s your thread, go wherever you want. That’s just my opinion. I do feel we are very close to human cloning. Of course now Obama has lifted that prohibition on embryonic stem cell research so we might see things moving at a slightly faster clip. Not that stem cell research is directly related to cloning but in certain respects it’s a matter of allocation of time, resources and cash. It will move it all along I think.
I think we will be able to clone a human and probably not all that far into the future. It’s been done with sheep and dogs and smaller mammals already but there are normally complications such as accelerated ageing. It’s a matter of fine tuning at this point. I think a human will need to come first before an entirely new species unless something extremely covert has been taking place which is possible.
Humans are born with it and it develops. Are you familiar with borderline personality disorder? Essentially it causes a person to not be capable of feeling empathy. Interestingly enough, many religious cult leaders have been diagnosed sociopaths.
I meant no offense. I would rather say "Yahweh" because sometimes after saying god, it can be unclear which god you meant to people. If I say Yahweh generally there is no misunderstanding of which god I was referring. It’s also from back in school we used this title for the god of Abraham when studying the OT in cultural anthropology class so I got into the habit of using that terminology.
You actually agree with me on something. Essentially I believe that humans are born with a moral compass. Barring an actual psychological disturbance such as borderline personality disorder, humans have the built in ability to feel empathy and this will guide their decision making process as it effects other living organisms around them. You might ask what that is and it’s basically that instinctually we have a basic understanding of right and wrong but as we mature, external influences will also play a significant role. So of course our parents and societal constraints will modify and mold our overall understanding of "right and wrong."
If you grew up in a polygamist community in Utah, that would be your understanding of "right" as it applied to marriage and the purpose of matrimony.
They are all condemned to hell and the fiery lake of course. Especially any of you cute New Age types...The term “New Age” is kind of an inaccurate description as many of those spiritualities are based on paganism which extends back thousands of years before Christianity and into the Neolithic or later part of the Stone Age. I think “New Age” is primarily a marketing term for those shops.
Well that's really all anyone has asked here that you understand. You can not ask the atheists to substantiate a negative assertion. That does not support your case and is an illogical argument. Its like an 8 year old saying that there is a monster under the bed and since I cant find the monster even when I turn the light on, the monster exists. The child's rationale will be something along the lines of, well the light makes them invisible...
I appreciate your story about your son and his understanding of "spirit". That was interesting.
Conrad was sharing my position last I looked. I was referring to him. I dont suppose you have bothered to read anyone else's posts other than your own on this thread. Typical...
And you are assuming I am an atheist even though you would have no possible way of knowing that. It is PURE speculation on your part. I could be a Pagan for all you know. I could even be Polytheistic.
But that is not what was brought up. It was stated that the Atheists needed to demonstrate proof that god does not exist. I have stated over and over again and shown supportive evidence for why this is not the case.
That would people attempting to substantitae a positive assertion. What do you think I have been saying over and over again here? We have told you that the burden of proof falls upon you, as the believer, to prove that god exists.
We do have a stalemate. The reason? You can not prove your positive assertion that a god exists beyond all reasonable doubt and the Atheists can not substantiate a negative assertion (nor do they need to.) Neither team get's the point because they cancel one another out.
Thats perfectly fine because that is a reasonable argument. Then all they need to do is prove it to someone else. You can not go to the atheists and say "god exists because you cant prove he doesnt." That sounds like the argument of an 8 year old child quite frankly.
Talk about a straw man fallacy argument. Who ever made this claim?? I have not heard one Atheist on this forum ever say that their position is true as you seem to claim. Talk about reading stuff in that doesnt exist. We are telling you thats it is a STALEMATE. You can not prove that god exists and we can not prove that a god does not exist (although the burden of proof does not fall upon the non-believers to do so.)
No. I have merely stated the same premise over and over because it seems to not be getting through. About 8 of us now have been doing so.
A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience.
Did you even read what I said! I was trying not to insult you. Anyway, he gave you the link. Are you going to read it or make the same argument over an over?
Did you even tread that link or ignore it? The burden of proof does not lie upon the "non-believer." If I called you a murderer, wouldn't the burden of proof fall upon me to provide evidence for that claim? Or you dont mind being trucked off to prison for the rest of your life based on an unsubstantiated positive assertion?
People in the Amazon? What do they have to do with this discussion? They are Pagans and certainly hold no belief in the alleged god of Abraham. They existed well before that flash in the pan.
I am not expending any effort on a personal basis. Many of us have simply explained why you can not expect the "non-believer" assuming you are referring to the god of Abraham, to substantiate his alleged non-existence. It also begs the question, why dont you address your positive assertion?
Or can you not give us that proof? We are asking that you support a positive assertion. If I say you are the murderer, would I not be subject to the burden of proof or are you okay going to prison for life based on my accusation alone?
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That’s the answer to this statement in theory.
However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.
First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
You do realize it does not only apply to god? Besides, shouldn't you be capable of substantiating a positive? i.e. god does exist? If you could do that successfully, it would sure save you all the trouble of arguing on internet forums (and filling tithe jars)
krimsa Forum Posts (1,345)
Is the Bible Repulsive?
I agree it’s difficult to read. After a while you adjust to the phrasing but it’s similar to watching "Hamlet" or a play where they are speaking in that old English manner. Uhhh